The eldritch invocation Far Scribe lets a creature put its name in the book. Likewise for Gift of the Protectors.

With your permission, a creature can use its action to write its name on that page, which can contain a number of names equal to your proficiency bonus.

The nearest equivalent to this is the wizard's spell book, (indeed there's The Book of Ancient Secrets eldritch invocation gives a warlock the ability to cast ritual spells), but I don't think the Book of Shadows behaves exactly the same as a wizard's spellbook. For instance a wizard can have any number of backup spell books, but the warlock can't back up the contents of their Book of Shadows:

If you lose your Book of Shadows, you can perform a 1-hour ceremony to receive a replacement from your patron. This ceremony can be performed during a short or long rest, and it destroys the previous book. The book turns to ash when you die.

A wizard's spellbook also obviously hasn't got an equivalent to the names added by various eldritch invocations.

If I recreate the book, do I still have its previous contents, names from invocations and whatnot in there? Does it matter where the contents come from?

The accepted answer on When a Book of Shadows is replaced due to loss, are rituals that were inscribed in it lost? says that anything written by the warlock is lost by analogy with the wizard's spellbook, but anything from the patron is preserved. The other answers have rulings (that have no official weight) from Jeremy Crawford‏ and Mike Mearls that the rituals and cantrips are preserved. The answerer argues it is due to rare inks.

Given that the warlocks Book of Shadows is an eldritch item provided by the Patron, and not a wizard's 'mundane' spellbook, do the names added by others (i.e. content not added using rare inks) have the same fate as the ritual spells? Do they get preserved or not?


1 Answer 1


The rules do not say, and so the GM is going to have to make a ruling.

A good argument that the book is recreated with names intact is that the book itself comes from the patron, and so the patron can provide it in whatever form the patron wishes. There are some narrative consequences to this. For some patrons, this may imply that the book belongs to the patron as much as to the warlock, if the patron can recreate in its entirety. This may have implications. Additionally, some patrons may restore the book, but at a cost.

An argument against is that perhaps the patron does not actually have the knowledge in the book, and so cannot recreate it as it was.

The answer is going to be heavily dependent on the specific campaign, story, and especially the patron and warlock involved.

Often, there is narrative tension between a patron and warlock. A warlock is "sworn and beholden". A warlock newly back from the dead, for instance, will need to recreate the book. Perhaps the patron recreates it exactly as is, perhaps not, perhaps there is some... negotiation. Because there's a cost. There's always a cost.

Good stuff.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ great answer; the default is that 'when you resummon your book it has in it what you put into it' at each table where I have played. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 6 at 15:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .